The Gazette 1974

UNREPORTED IRISH CASES

time to consider the position pending the availability of the new bonus scheme to him. On 31 August 1973 John R. Sisk and George Sisk requested his reply to the offer and he told them he was not accepting it as it resulted in a reduced status for him from a full ordinary director of the company to a director of a regional board of a new company and because no details of the bonus scheme were furnished to him. He said he was then told that he should be able to get fixed up with alternative employment within three months or by the end of the year at the latest and also that details of the financial offer of compensation to him would follow. Negotiations involving payment of a substantial amount of money by way of compensation, together with a proposal that he should be given the Mercedes car, followed. Agreement was not reached on the terms on which he should leave the company and surrender his position as surveyor director. Resolutions approving reorganisation and wrongful dismissal At a series of board meetings of the company on December 19 and 20 last, resolutions were passed pur- porting to approve of, and give effect to, the scheme of company reorganisation, notwithstanding his opposition to it pending finalisation of the negotiations between him and the company. In the afternoon of December 20 John R. Sisk, managing director of the company, wrongfully purported to dismiss him from all positions he held in the company and ordered him to leave the premises. Mr. McGrath stated that he commenced proceedings in the High Gourt on January 8, which were served on the company the following day. Since December 20 no further effort had been made on behalf of the company to reach agreement with him on the terms on which he should give up his position in the company. On February 13 he received a letter and notice of an extraordinary general meeting of the company to be held on March 12 (today) to consider and, if thought fit, to pass a special resolution that he be removed from his office of director of the company. His solicitors had sought particulars of the ground or grounds which would be relied on as warranting his removal from his position and an assurance that the resolution would not be proceeded with pending the determination of the proceedings. The requests were refused. [McGrath v. Capwell Investments; O'Keeffe P.; un- reported; 10 March 1974.] Minister's decision in granting planning permission for housing development in Killiney ultra vires and void. The plaintiff is a registered friendly society of resi- dents in Killiney and Ballybrack; it claims that a deci- sion of the Minister for Local Government made in August 1972 pursuant to the Planning Act, 1963, grant- ing permission subject to conditions for housing devel- opment at Hackettsfield, Killiney, by the defendants is 100

High Court refuses injunction by director against his removal by company. In the High Court, Dublin, the President, Mr- Justice O'Keeffe, refused an application brought b V a Cork company director for an interim injunction restraining Capwell Investments Ltd. (formerly John Sisk and Son Ltd.) from removing him, at a meeting due to be held today, from his position as surveyor director of the company. The plaintiff was James P. McGrath, of Belfort House, Montenotte. Mr. Justice O'Keeffe said it was n ot a case for an interim injunction. Mr. McGrath, in an affidavit, stated that he was a Ppointed a technical director of the defendant com- p l y on 3 August 1966 and on 13 November 1967 he w as elected a full ordinary director of the company and ipven charge by the board of the surveying department ar »d the jobbing and small contract section. On 1 March 1963 he became a member of the company's pension a n d life assurance scheme with provision for normal retirement on the sixtieth anniversary of his birth. In 1969 it was agreed at a meeting of the directors of the company that the non-shareholding directors of the company would continue as such directors and in the e uipl 0 yment of the company until each reached retire- ment age. As such company director, he became entitled to a ,ar ger share in the profit-sharing scheme. He became e utitled to a share of the profits calculated in proportion lo twice his annual salary. His salary for the year ended December 31 last was £5,800. In addition, he was entitled to a Christmas and summer bonus of £90, and to have provided for him a Mercedes car for use both ° n the company's business and on his private affairs as well, p company reorganisation arranged At a meeting of S / SD Holdings on 8 May 1973 at Wilton Works, Naas Road, Co. Dublin, he and other uirectors were given a company memorandum under t b e heading "Company Reorganisation". The directors ^ r e told at the meeting that each would be informed mdividually within a week or ten days on how the c°mpany reorganisation would affect him. On July 31 last he was interviewed by John R. Sisk, Martin Quirke and Kevin Callan, at Capwell Works, Cork, and he was given a very general review in connection with the proposed company re- Or ganisation, to the effect that it was intended to cen- ^alise the building company in Dublin and that a ^visional board of directors for the southern region was m be appointed. He was offered a position as a regional director on the southern board. He was told he would receive the same salary, but that a new bonus or profit- f a r i ng scheme was to be introduced. particulars given Mr. McGrath stated that he asked for particulars of me new bonus scheme, but was informed that they could not be given to him for possibly three or four months. He was given three weeks to consider the pro- Posed new position and was refused an extension of